Pennsylvannia
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Mon Feb 7 18:46:58 1994
From: johnsonp%eccx.dnet@esu36.ateng.az.Honeywell.COM
Subject: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Can anyone give me a summary of Pennsylvania laws/restrictions concerning
home schooling? Is it relatively easy to begin home schooling in that
state? Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Mon Feb 7 23:11:20 1994
From: madams@yorkcol.edu
Subject: RE: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
If you call Susan or Howard Richman at 1-412-783-6512 they could give you all
the info. you will need. We are a homeschooling family in Pa. (Red Lion,
which is near Three Mile Island)and we think it is quite easy to Homeschool in
Pa.
Mike A. in Red Lion, Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 03:38:07 1994
From: richard655@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the leaders at
Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network. They have information on
every aspect of PA homeschooling.
anne in chicago
----------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 08:32:18 1994
From: "Stephen M. Shearer, 695-7719"
Subject: RE: Pennsylvania Home School
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Can anyone give me a summary of Pennsylvania laws/restrictions concerning
home schooling? Is it relatively easy to begin home schooling in that
state? Thank you.
I suggest you contact one group (there may be other groups):
Christian Home School Association of Pennsylvania
1464 Old line Road
Manheim, PA 17545
(717) 665-7091
BTW, State convention, May 14 in Harrisburg; contact (717) 661-2428
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 08:08:45 1994
From: dale@aloft.att.com
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 0000000
0
>Can anyone give me a summary of Pennsylvania laws/restrictions concerning
>home schooling? Is it relatively easy to begin home schooling in that
>state? Thank you.
While you are waiting to contact the Richmans, I'll give you a quick
summary from their "Guide to PA Homeschool Law" bulletin.
1. File a notarized affidavit with your school district before your
child begins home education and annually thereafter. Mandatory
education need not begin until a child reaches age 8 in Pa., but
once schooling or home education begins it must continue. The
affidavit includes a list of objectives; this can be very general.
2. Keep a portfolio to show areas of study and progress. The
school district inspects this annually.
3. Standardized testing must occur in 3rd, 5th & 8th grade.
You can pick from a range of tests, and can work with school
district or home ed organizations on this.
4. Evaluation must occur annually by a qualified teacher (for
your child's age) or psychologist. The evaluator examines
the portfolio, interviews the child and writes an evaluation
that goes to the school district. You pick the evaluator.
5. You must give evidence of ongoing medical checkups for
the child.
Not too severe, although I'd prefer that the standardized
tests would go away. The Richmans, by the way, serve as
traveling evaluators and test administrators for home schoolers
in many Pa. locales.
Dale Parson, dale@aloft.att.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 12:10:17 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 0000000
0
>
> Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the leaders at
> Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network. They have information on
> every aspect of PA homeschooling.
>
> anne in chicago
I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think twice before
contacting the Richman's concerning home education. I have been in
personal contact with home educators in Pennsylvania and it is my
understanding that the Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They
are in it for the money.
For those of you that are interested, I will follow up on this subject
in Home-Ed-Politics. I had no intention of getting into this, but the
recent posts indicate that a clarification is necessary. There are
two laws regulating home education and possible a third. Home
Education Magazine removed the Richman's from their list of support
groups after learning about the situation in Pennsylvannia.
Alternate contacts:
Pennsylvania Home Education Network (Penn Hen), 285 Allegheny St.,
Meadville, PA 16335.
Center City Homeschoolers, c/o Marion Cohen, 2203 Spruce St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 732-7723
---------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Tue Feb 8 11:10:44 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: new to the group!
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Dear people of various religious and political persuasions,
I have just learned how to access this mailing list and have had a wonderful
time reading through all the posts. I am a homeschooling mom of eight!
years(my son is 14) and am looking forward to many interesting discussions.
By the way, My husband and I were very much involved with HSLDA and others
in helping craft PA's H.S. law in 1989. HSLDA also defended us and 3 other
families against the Pittsburgh City Schools in 1990 when the educrats tried
to "flout" the law. Unlike what appears to be happening in NH, Pennsylvania's
judge upheld the law. May-be the problem isn't NH's law but the judges.
Laurie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 13:56:57 1994
From: dale@aloft.att.com
Subject: Pa home-ed
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
One other source of info on Pa. home-ed in state
government is :
Dr. Kenneth Miller
Pa. Dept of Ed.
333 Market St.
5th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa. 17126
717-783-3750
It's been a few years, but he was my first (phone)
contact for Senate Bill 154 that spells out the details.
The Richman's pamphlet essentially covers the same ground,
but I find it useful to read it in two sets of words in
case I miss something in one set. The Richmans certainly
have a business; I don't think they deny that. As with
any other "expert" one is certainly free to take any
expert advice with a grain of salt.
Dale Parson, dale@aloft.att.com
--------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 14:50:32 1994
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
From: Alan Koch
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Doris Hohensee says:
> I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think twice before
> contacting the Richman's concerning home education. I have been in
> personal contact with home educators in Pennsylvania and it is my
> understanding that the Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They
> are in it for the money.
Since when is open character assassination a substitute for the facts?
(Since this is the internet, right?)
Yes, the Richman's make money by providing services to homeschoolers.
And yes, they were involved in lobying for and negotiating the laws that we
operate under in PA. But that doeas NOT equate to exploitation! In fact,
they have a meager home-based business of selling books and pamphlets, and
doing evaluations of home schooling programs (as required under PA law.)
But everything they do is beneficial to those who purchase the products and
services, and NONE of their proces is anything but cheap. I don't know what
their financial picture looks like, but given the prices they charge, they
can't be getting rich off of this.
In summary; there are NO signs that they are motivated by greed, and their
customers are DEFINATELY NOT being exploited. (You are only exploited when
you pay out more than you receive back.)
My take on the situation? I see two groups of folks who are jealous of the
following that the Richman's have, and wish to discredit them so they can
take power from them. Those two groups:
- The Evangelical Christians (Richman's are Jewish, and BTW I am E.C.) and
- The Unschoolers (Richman's tend toward the more structured end of the
spectrum.)
THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION!
> For those of you that are interested, I will follow up on this subject
> in Home-Ed-Politics. ... There are
> two laws regulating home education and possible a third.
Huh??? I can't wait for your messages. In my reading and involvement in
legal hastles and court cases, I've never heard of such a thing!
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 15:48:13 1994
From: astph!bill@world.std.com (Bill Dripps)
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Doris Hohensee writes:
>>
>> Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the leaders at
>> Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network. They have information on
>> every aspect of PA homeschooling.
>>
>> anne in chicago
>
>I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think twice before
>contacting the Richman's concerning home education. I have been in
>personal contact with home educators in Pennsylvania and it is my
>understanding that the Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They
>are in it for the money.
Ouch!
I am a home schooler in Pennsylvania and have been for quite some
time. The Richman's are as trustworthy as could be hoped for.
"Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow
is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor"
- Proverbs 25:18
"Without wood a fire goes out;
without gossip a quarrel dies down"
- Proverbs 26:20
Bill Dripps
814-234-8592 ext.31 | psuvax1!astph!bill | astph!bill@cs.psu.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 16:05:18 1994
From: Jason - Hollister
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
To: Alan Koch
Cc: home-ed@world.std.com
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Odd. I always thought the Richmans had a quite unstructured approach. At
least, that's the impression I got from reading their book, The Three R's
at Home (from which, incidentally, I found the inspiration to start
homeschooling my kids). Have they added more structure in recent years?
Anita Hollister, using husband's account
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 16:07:08 1994
From: Rytis Balciunas
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Doris Hohensee wrote:
> >
> > Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the leaders at
> > Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network. They have information on
> > every aspect of PA homeschooling.
> >
> > anne in chicago
>
> I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think twice before
> contacting the Richman's concerning home education. I have been in
> personal contact with home educators in Pennsylvania and it is my
> understanding that the Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They
> are in it for the money.
[...REST OF STUFF DELETED..]
HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH AN ACCUSATION... If you have an opinion, say so. To
base an opinion on hearsay is rather low, in *MY* opinion.
Have you EVER been in personal contact with the Richmans themselves?
As one who has had direct and indirect contact with them in the very few
years that we have home schooled, I find our statement ludicrous. The
Richmans were instrumental in getting folks together to pass the PA
homeschool law IN THE FIRST PLACE - without it, we'd be mired in the
current "outcomes based" metality of the state...
Sure, they make a small profit from the home schooling materials they
distribute. That's called being "business-smart". They don't charge
obscene amounts of money (quite reasonable, if you ask me) for the materials.
Pretty good way to TEACH their children business sense, if you ask me...
You're free to not make use of their services or materials, no one's
forcing you. No reason to be putting them down because you "heard" they
"exploit homeschoolers". RUBBISH.
Doris, you are entitled to your opinions, but please don't put someone down
without having dealt with them DIRECTLY.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rytis T. Balciunas (rytis@telerama.lm.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 16:24:43 1994
To: Jason - Hollister
Cc: home-ed@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
From: Alan Koch
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> Odd. I always thought the Richmans had a quite unstructured approach. At
> least, that's the impression I got from reading their book, The Three R's
> at Home (from which, incidentally, I found the inspiration to start
> homeschooling my kids). Have they added more structure in recent years?
No, they haven't changed.
It really depends on who you compare them to. They are much less structured
than some folks. But the unschoolers are absolutely against evaluations,
testing of any kind, and several other things that the Richman's support in
the PA law.
I tend to place them pretty much in the middle, structure-wise.
ask
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 17:33:41 1994
From: "Claude W. Anderson"
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Doris Hohensee writes:
>> Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the leaders at
>> Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network. They have information
>> on every aspect of PA homeschooling.
>>
>> anne in chicago
>
>I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think twice before
>contacting the Richman's concerning home education. I have been in
>personal contact with home educators in Pennsylvania and it is my
>understanding that the Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They
>are in it for the money.
Do you meant that they provide a service and have the gall to CHARGE for it?
Horrors!
I am a College professor. I probably wouldn't be if no one paid me to do
it. Chances are that i'd have to spend so much of my time doing something
else to earn a living that I wouldn't have time to be a college professor.
So I must be in it for the money, and therefore no one should sign up for my
classes.
Claude Anderson :-)>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 17:25:47 1994
From: evola@simon.wustl.edu (Tom_Evola_the_homeschooling_Dad)
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
I GUESS WE NEED TO HEAR FROM DORIS ABOUT THE DETAILS (WITH CONCRETE
EVIDENCE) OF WHY THE RICHMANS WERE REMOVED FROM THE SUPPORT GROUP LIST
DISTRIBUTED FROM THE "HOME EDUCATION MAGAZINE" FOLKS. I THINK THERE
ARE ENOUGH FOLKS ON THE LIST WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO LET US KNOW THAT
DORIS' ORIGINAL "ATTACK" ON THE RICHMANS WAS A TAD EMOTIONAL FOR SURE,
BUT IF ANYONE CAN GIVE BETTER DETAILS ON HER ONLY SUPPORTING "EVIDENCE"
(I.E. THE DECISION MADE BY THE REASONABLY RESPECTED "HOME EDUCATION MAG")
IT WOULD BE CURIOUS.
YOURS IN CURIOSITY,
-------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Tue Feb 8 21:22:31 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
It was my understanding that politics was not welcome on home-ed,
therefore my initial concern was to move this discussion to
home-ed-politics, where it is more appropriate. A brief response
to the some of the critical comments posted here follows. *All*
of my subsequent posts on this subject will be to home-ed-politics.
I reiterate, home-ed is *not* the place for this thread.
Taken to an extreme, one can consider *all* testimony to be hearsay.
I believe I said that it was "my understanding" that the Richmans
had caused problems in PA. Please take note of the precise words I
used. I do not intend to rely upon my memory of conversations with
PA homeschoolers (i.e., "hearsay"), but will post material published
by those on the spot in support of my statements. Those of you who
followed my posts on the NH situation or have consulted the archives
know that I tend toward documentary overkill ;-).
We have similar problems here in New Hampshire: this type of situation
seems to recur frequently. Individuals whose original motives may be
above reproach, become involved in the legislative and, subsequently,
the regulatory process. As they become more influential politically,
it sometimes happens that the best interests of those they supposedly
represent become secondary to the personal interests and/or political
agenda of the individuals in question. It can happen to anyone. As
the saying goes: "Power corrupts."
It is interesting to note that Pennsylvania law was the model for NH's
home education law, including the methods used to secure its passage.
So we have a lot to be grateful for here in NH ;-). The Richmans were
instrumental in passing the PA law and apparently continue to be
involved in the regulatory process. We have had a similar situation
in NH since our law passed.
I intend to post a letter written by Howard Richman to Home Education
Magazine (HEM) and the response of three Pennsylvania homeschoolers to
his letter, also published by HEM. You read and decide for yourself.
Doris Hohensee
doris@mainstream.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Wed Feb 9 01:53:47 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
The following thread is being moved from home-ed to home-ed-politics:
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 16:29:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
> Can anyone give me a summary of Pennsylvania laws/restrictions
> concerning home schooling? Is it relatively easy to begin
> home schooling in that state? Thank you.
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 03:16:53 EST
> Contact Susan & Howard Richman at (412) 783-6512. They are the
> leaders at Pennsylvania Homeschoolers, a state-wide network.
> They have information on every aspect of PA homeschooling.
>
> anne in chicago
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 11:06:47 -0500 (EST)
> I would like to suggest that anyone in Pennsylvania think
> twice before contacting the Richman's concerning home
> education. I have been in personal contact with home
> educators in Pennsylvania and it is my understanding that the
> Richman's exploit homeschoolers. They are in it for the money.
>
> For those of you that are interested, I will follow up on this
> subject in Home-Ed-Politics. I had no intention of getting into
> this, but the recent posts indicate that a clarification is
> necessary. There are two laws regulating home education and
> possible a third. Home Education Magazine removed the
> Richman's from their list of support groups after learning about
> the situation in Pennsylvannia.
>
> Alternate contacts:
>
> Pennsylvania Home Education Network (Penn Hen), 285 Allegheny
> St., Meadville, PA 16335.
>
> Center City Homeschoolers, c/o Marion Cohen, 2203 Spruce St.,
> Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 732-7723
>
> Doris Hohensee
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994
> It was my understanding that politics was not welcome on home-ed,
> therefore my initial concern was to move this discussion to
> home-ed-politics, where it is more appropriate. A brief response
> to the some of the critical comments posted here follows. *All*
> of my subsequent posts on this subject will be to home-ed-politics.
> I reiterate, home-ed is *not* the place for this thread.
>
> Taken to an extreme, one can consider *all* testimony to be hearsay.
> I believe I said that it was "my understanding" that the Richmans
> had caused problems in PA. Please take note of the precise words I
> used. I do not intend to rely upon my memory of conversations with
> PA homeschoolers (i.e., "hearsay"), but will post material published
> by those on the spot in support of my statements. Those of you who
> followed my posts on the NH situation or have consulted the archives
> know that I tend toward documentary overkill ;-).
>
> We have similar problems here in New Hampshire: this type of situation
> seems to recur frequently. Individuals whose original motives may be
> above reproach, become involved in the legislative and, subsequently,
> the regulatory process. As they become more influential politically,
> it sometimes happens that the best interests of those they supposedly
> represent become secondary to the personal interests and/or political
> agenda of the individuals in question. It can happen to anyone. As
> the saying goes: "Power corrupts."
>
> It is interesting to note that Pennsylvania law was the model for NH's
> home education law, including the methods used to secure its passage.
> So we have a lot to be grateful for here in NH ;-). The Richmans were
> instrumental in passing the PA law and apparently continue to be
> involved in the regulatory process. We have had a similar situation
> in NH since our law passed.
>
> I intend to post a letter written by Howard Richman to Home Education
> Magazine (HEM) and the response of three Pennsylvania homeschoolers to
> his letter, also published by HEM. You read and decide for yourself.
>
> Doris Hohensee
> doris@mainstream.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Wed Feb 9 02:17:58 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>From Home Education Magazine (November-December 1992)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
--------------------------
Letter from Howard Richman
--------------------------
Dear HEM,
Two pieces in the Sept/Oct issue of HEM leave the impression that
Pennsylvania has one of the worst home education laws in the country
-- Earl Steven's piece and Norma Young's letter. I was very much
involved with the lobbying for our Pennsylvania law from 1984 until
1988, and I even wrote a book about our victory (Story of a Bill), so
I take criticism of our laws somewhat personally. At the time our law
passed there were more homeschoolers being prosecuted in PA than any
other state. Now there are none, and the number of homeschoolers in PA
is going up by about 40% a year.
Generally, the criticisms of the PA law focus on the amount of
documentation that we have to keep to show that our children are
receiving an education. At the beginning of the year we must write
down our goals for the year. During the year we must keep a log of
activities, and collect samples of our children's work. At the end of
the year we must choose a public school teacher, private school
teacher, psychologist, or former teacher (many homeschooling parents
are available ) to write an evaluation of our children's progress.
While our law is clearly cumbersome, it is better than other states in
may ways:
1. Unlike 48 states, our compulsory school age doesn't begin until 8.
2. Unlike three states (AR, WV, and high school students in NY), our
children don't have to pass tests to keep homeschooling. In Arkansas
if your child scores just eight months below grade level on an
achievement test, he or she can be forced into school.
3. Unlike three states (teaching certificate in MI, college degree in
NM, and college degree if you want to teach in high school in TN) we
don't have to have a college education to teach our children. Note,
however, that although the law in Michigan requires all teachers
(including homeschoolers) to have teaching certificates, few
homeschoolers are being prosecuted due to the good efforts in court of
Clonlara and the HSLDA.
4. Unlike Arkansas, we don't have to get the approval of the special
education bureaucrats to teach handicapped children at home.
5. Unlike 49 states, our children can graduate as homeschoolers and
have their high school diplomas recognized by the state for legal
purposes such as state scholarship grants to college. Our graduates
don't need to be stigmatized by the GED and don't have to pretend to
be graduates of small private schools. Furthermore, the required
written evaluations are helping even those with mediocre SAT scores
get into their college of choice. Similarly, when PA homeschooled
children enroll in public high schools they generally have their
credits accepted. Even the military is accepting homeschoolers'
diplomas in PA.
There are many ways to measure how good or bad a homeschooling law is.
If your only measure is how much documentation it requires, then our
law may be the worst (though many homeschoolers actually find the
requirements to be helpful!). If your measure is whether it allows
homeschooling, then our law is pretty good. If your measure is how
well it helps homeschool graduates succeed in life, then our law may
be the best!
Sincerely, Howard Richman, Editor, PA Homeschoolers, R.D. 2, Box 117,
Kittanning, PA 16201
[Ed. Note: The August, 1992 issue of The Pennsylvania Home Education
Network newsletter contains a letter which states, "The law (Act 169
of 1988) says, 'The following minimum courses in grades nine through
twelve are established as a requirement for graduation in a home
education program.' Does that mean you may omit these courses and
forego graduation? Certainly not. It means that you must comply with
no less than these courses. You may not opt out."
The letter goes on to caution readers about the PA Department of
Education's Basic Education Circular, March 1989, which adds a sentence
not in the law: "School districts are under no obligation to award a
diploma or otherwise acknowledge the completion of a home education
student's education."
For further information write to The Pennsylvania Home Education
Network, 285 Allegheny St., Meadville, PA 16335.]
=====================================================================
>From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
--------------------------
Letter from Karen Leventry
--------------------------
Dear HEM,
I agree with Earl Stevens that outside descriptions of individual
state law and requirements can be misleading. Unfortunately, so can
glowing reports from within the particular state from people with
vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Yes, I am referring
to the letter from Mr. Howard Richman in which he once again reminds
us that thing could be worse. Please be advised that this excuse has
been used since 1988 to respond to any criticism of any aspect of this
law. A good many of us are also well aware of the fact that Mr.
Richman has written a book about his experiences and do not need to be
continually reminded that this book is in print and can be purchased
from many sources.
I beg to differ with or at least expand upon many of Mr. Richman's
statements. Surely he will agree that, as a home educator in
Pennsylvania, I also have the same right he does to comment about the
law I must proceed under.
First of all, a the beginning of the year, there are a few more things
we must do besides "write down our goals for the year." We must also
submit a notarized affidavit which sets forth: the name of the
supervisor who shall be responsible for the provision of the
instruction; the name and age of each child; the address and
telephone number of the home education site; and that such subjects
as are required by law are offered in the English language. Proof
that the "supervisor" has a high school diploma or its equivalent (the
"stigmatizing" GED?) is also required. (Dust off those fancy diplomas
folks, someone finally created a use for them.)
We must submit an "outline of proposed education objectives by subject
area" (16 areas for elementary grades, 20 areas required for
secondary); "evidence that the child has been immunized," and evidence
that the child "has received the health and medical services required
for students of the child's age or grade level."
But my favorite requirement of the initial affidavit is the
certification I must sign stating that "all adults living in the home
and persons having legal custody of a child or children in a home
education program have not been convicted of (a felony) within five
years of the affidavit." This information is the school district's to
keep, and I have to submit the entire package (not just a list of our
goals) yearly. And while the law doesn't address the matter of how
one should submit the above, I would suggest that one send it by
certified mail, return receipt requested, so it doesn't get "lost."
What we are by law required to keep is "a log, made contemporaneously
with the instruction, which designates by title the reading materials
used, samples of any writings, worksheets, workbooks or creative
materials used or developed by the student." You may notice that the
word "activities" is not mentioned and I'd sure hate to try
substituting a list of my child's activities for the list of reading
materials the law requires.
Quoting Mr. Richman, "our law is clearly cumbersome." In fact, it is
so cumbersome that a book has been written to help home educating
parents comply with it without altering their educational style. I'm
extremely curious to know how many Pennsylvania home educators are
aware of this book's existence?
As for as the many ways in which our law is better than other states,
well-l-l?
Yes, at the moment the compulsory school age is still eight, but that
is not guaranteed by the Home Education Act. The fact is that just in
the last year, a measure was reintroduced in the legislature to lower
the compulsory attendance age. This bill is introduced regularly, and
only continued public (not just home educators) pressure prevents its
passage. If it is ever passed you can be sure *all* parents will have
to comply.
No, our children don't have to pass tests to keep homeschooling.
However one may feel about testing, at least those states that require
yearly testing give some excuse for it. In Pennsylvania, our children
must take tests in grades three, five, and eight for no reason at all,
since the test scores, by law, cannot be used to judge compliance. We
do have the option of taking the state-mandated test or picking from a
state-approved list of tests and buying one, having it proctored by
someone other than the parent of the child taking the test, and
returning the test for scoring. I have chosen the private option and
it cost me about $40 including postage.
Then we come to the glowing paragraph about high school diplomas. I'd
be curious to know just how many school districts are willing to grant
homeschoolers a diploma, given the Department of Education's
admonition that they aren't required to. Yes, I do know of one source
where I can "buy" an "approved" diploma (no, they won't give it to me
for free) *if* I comply with their requirements. Guess who?
As far as the "stigmatizing" GED is concerned, my child can pass the
test at any time, however, he won't receive the actual diploma until
he's eighteen, and at the present time, PHEAA, the body that grants
state loans, will not recognize anything but the actual GED diploma.
Therefore, if your seventeen-year-old (or younger, in some cases)
wants to apply for a grant from the state, even if he's been accepted
to the college of his choice, he's out of luck!
As far as the section concerning evaluators, I would caution
Pennsylvania parents. This is probably your most difficult hurdle.
First of all, it is your right (and in my humble opinion, your
obligation) to choose your evaluator. I could not believe that some
parents actually let the school district choose their evaluator! On
the other hand, you can't just pick anyone. I can't be an evaluator
simply because I'm a homeschooling parent. The law is quite specific
as to the requirements in just who is allowed to perform this task.
It's also no great secret that efforts have been made to require these
people to be "licensed." So far, these efforts have failed, but they
haven't been forgotten. Not to mention the fact that while efforts
are underway at this time to compile a list of qualified evaluators,
at the present time it's every man for himself. Finally, while I'm
sorry for those parents who got a big surprise when they went for
their evaluations, perhaps people considering home education can
learn a lesson. It is *your* responsibility to interview your
prospective evaluator and make sure that your educational styles are
compatible. After all, you're usually paying for this service, and
many times traveling for it, too.
Is home education really growing by 40% a year in Pennsylvania?
That's truly amazing in a state whose law is designed to discourage
all but the most determined individuals. I'm extremely curious as to
how he arrived at that figure, since I have no way of compiling such
figures.
These comments don't even begin to cover every aspect of the law, and
there are many other areas in the overall situation that need to be
seriously addressed by all home educating parents in Pennsylvania. In
particular, those of us who are concerned about the "new" DOE
"Outcome-Based-Education" program have noted the amazing similarity of
the Home Education Act and some of the provisions of OBE. The
ramifications of this program lead me to wonder if the days of "our"
law are numbered?
If any Pennsylvania homeschooling parent is interested in learning
more about this, or has any comment on this subject, there is a
state-wide grass-roots parents organization that would like to hear
from you. The Pennsylvania Home Education Network can be contacted at
285 Allegheny St., Meadville, PA 16335. There is no charge for the
information they provide.
For those of you who live in a state that has an even worse (?) law,
you tell me: Would you move (all other things being equal) to
Pennsylvania with all it's "helpful" requirements, or to Maine.
Frankly, one sheet of paper, one envelope, and a 29 cent stamp sounds
pretty good to me.
Sincerely, Karen D. Leventry, Box 191, Summerhill, PA 15958
======================================================================
>From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
-------------------------
Letter from Diana Baseman
-------------------------
Dear HEM,
I am writing in regard to Howard Richman's letter in the Nov/Dec issue
of HEM. Mr. Richman's letter contains a great deal of misinformation
which I would like to correct.
Pennsylvania currently has at least two laws regulating home education
and the possibility of a third. The easiest law to work with is the
private tutoring provision, which requires PA teacher certification
and has very few requirements. Some homeschoolers are also attempting
to homeschool under the private school laws, but it is not clear at
this time that they will be able to do so. The third option, used by
most people, is the home education law Mr. Richman refers to. I
believe it is one of the worst home education laws in the country. In
fact, many homeschoolers contact the Pennsylvania Home Education
Network, of which I am the current coordinator, just to find out if
they can become certified teachers or start private schools because
they feel so burdened by its requirements.
I would also like to question the inclusion of Pennsylvania
Homeschoolers on your list of support groups and organizations because
it is a private, profit-making business of the Richman family, with no
members or advisory board, and because the Richman's take action on
behalf of their business interests while misleading homeschoolers into
believing they're acting on behalf of all homeschoolers. Most
homeschoolers, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, believe PA Homeschoolers
is a legitimate state organization. In order to sell its "services"
(such as testing, evaluations, a newsletter, and high school
diplomas), this business masquerades as a state organization. But
most of these "services" fill "needs" which were created either by 1)
the law which the Richmans were primarily responsible for passing, or
2) by their illegal interpretations of the law. PA Homeschoolers has
created a parallel bureaucracy to that of school and government
officials. Here are some examples:
1. Homeschoolers are advised to provide much more information to
school districts in their portfolios than is legally required, and
they are advised that low test scores may jeopardize their ability to
continue homeschooling. This sets dangerous precedent for other
homeschoolers. Although they are not told outright that they must use
a particular teaching method, it is difficult for most homeschoolers
to figure out how to provide large quantities of paperwork and a daily
log of educational activities without resorting to school methods of
education. The educational viewpoint presented in PA Homeschoolers'
publications is that children must be forced to learn, that they must
be motivated by adults, that they should be involved in competitions,
writing clubs, public speaking, etc., to prove they are being
"properly educated." Other viewpoints have consistently been censored
and the contributors have been told either that their ideas are
negative, illegal, or there was "no room for them."
2. Home education evaluators are encouraged to make their own
regulations of the home education law and not to trust homeschooling
parents to educate their children. I attended a workshop for
evaluators in May of 1991 conducted by Howard Richman in which he said
that inconsistent, scanty homeschooling logs show that parents are
letting education slide. He equates documentation with education.
The law requires only a short statement about appropriate education,
yet the Richmans insist on writing lengthy detailed descriptions of
the child's progress or lack thereof in their evaluations. They
insist they do this so homeschoolers will "get their money's worth."
Many homeschoolers have commented that they would rather pay less and
get a shorter evaluation which would be less likely to set a dangerous
precedent for officials who then ask all homeschoolers to present this
type of information.
I also do home education evaluations. During the passage of the
homeschooling law I told Howard Richman that I was concerned that some
families would fall through the cracks, that they would not be able to
get evaluations done, especially those with lateblooming children or
those who did not know how to speak educationese. He assured me that
he would help those families.
On a number of occasions both Howard and Susan Richman have given me
examples of families they considered to be "not really educating"
their children or unworthy of a good home education evaluation or out
of compliance with the law (because they did not have a daily log).
All of these families were poor, most of the parents did not have many
educational qualifications, some of the families were using Christian
workbook curriculums or books the Richmans did not consider good
enough, and a few had lateblooming children, or lifestyles they did
not approve of.
The law does not require large amounts of documentation "to show that
our children are receiving an education." To put it in plain English,
each student must have a list of objectives, including at least one
for each of the required subjects, a list of book titles used, and two
or more samples of his or her work. Students in grades 3, 5, and 8
must also have standardized test scores. These requirements can
easily be met by any homeschooler. So why is this one of the worst
laws in the country?
It is what some have called a "nuisance law." In other words, it is
meant to discourage people from homeschooling by making all kinds of
requirements which have little to do with actual education and
everything to do with controlling families. It is five and a half
pages long (I wrote a 118 page book, The Pennsylvania Home Education
Handbook, just to help people navigate it), and includes all of the
following provisions:
1. Special education students must have a program approved by a PA
certified special education teacher or a licensed clinical
psychologist. Since these people are part of the educational system
it is almost impossible to find one who is willing to write an
approval letter. I receive phone calls all the time from parents of
special education children who need the required "special education
approval letter." I have not been able to find even one special
education teacher in Pennsylvania who will just write a letter.
2. The law states, "A home education program shall not be considered a
nonpublic school under the provisions of this act." This is usually
interpreted to mean that homeschoolers are part of the public school
system and cannot take advantage of any benefits of private education
and cannot start private schools.
3. A notarized affidavit must be filed. Among other things, it
requires evidence of immunization and medical and dental exams (you
can exempt out of these, but most people don't know that), and a
certification that all adults living in the home have not been
convicted in the last five years of a long line of criminal offenses.
4. Any time a family moves out of their local school district (there
are 501 of them ) they must apply by registered mail to their old
district for a letter of transfer to their new district thirty days
before relocation. If the family is in trouble with the old school
district, they can be denied the letter of transfer.
5. Twelve subjects are required to be taught.
6. All students must be evaluated and must be interviewed by their
evaluator.
7. Evaluator's qualifications are complex. It is not enough to be a
certified teacher. Various types of experience are also required.
Homeschoolers may ask for permission for someone without the
qualifications to be approved to do their evaluations, but school
districts are not required to give approval.
8. Homeschoolers must submit their portfolios as well as their
evaluations to the local school district at the end of the school
year and at any time during the school year that the school
superintendent has a "reasonable belief" that "appropriate education
may not be occurring in the home education program."
9. If the superintendent is not satisfied with the portfolio he may
request additional documentation. If the family does not provide it,
the student must be enrolled in school. If they do provide it, and he
is still not satisfied, a due process procedure begins, which includes
the appointment of "an impartial hearing examiner" by the local school
board. The hearing examiner may decide either to continue the home
education program, to establish a remedial program at home, or to
require enrollment in a public or private school.
10. Any time a home education program is determined to be out of
compliance with the law, the parents are not eligible to homeschool
for twelve months.
Sincerely, Diana Baseman, RD 3, Box 256B, Tarentum, PA 15084
=====================================================================
>From Home Education Magazine (January-February 1993)
P.O. Box 1083,Tonasket, WA 98855
-------------------------
Letter from Ron Baseman
-------------------------
Dear HEM,
I am writing in response to Howard Richman's letter in the Nov/Dec
issue of HEM and because I would like you to remove Pennsylvania
Homeschoolers from your list of support groups and organizations.
This letter is an edited version of one I sent to Howard and Susan
Richman in September, 1991, in response to a letter Susan Richman
wrote to the Penn HEN, regarding an article I wrote about boycotting
educational experts who exploit homeschoolers. The letter was
prompted by an article by the Richmans about a family that "shouldn't
be allowed to homeschool" (PA Homeschoolers, Fall, 1990), and the
outrageous foolishness about a state sanctioned Richman diploma (more
"valid" than any other) for homeschoolers.
Dear Howard and Susan,
I am frustrated with the attempts of experts to take control of the
do-it-yourself phenomenon of homeschooling. The paranoic concern of
political bodies with the education of the nation's children makes it
relatively easy for those trained in education to achieve mastery over
the efforts of those families who seek to educate themselves. For
about 150 years much, indeed most, of the state budgets throughout the
country have been spent on education. This has created a large class
of people who make a living educating the rest of the population.
There is always a large group of people who make a living teaching,
consulting, or writing textbooks in this country.
To attack the profession of educator is to attack the livelihood of
these people. One cannot blame educators for fighting back when
attacked, and for trying to prove that the work they do is valuable,
essential, and should continue. Perhaps it is, in some contexts.
You, along with many others across the country, have assumed this sort
of role within the homeschooling community. I question the validity
of such a role, I first question whether the educational experts (like
you) play a positive part in our society, and I conclude that in
spite of the great power delegated to them by society, experts have
certainly not achieved a victory over the downward slide of our
civilization and that educators are either themselves responsible for
the social deterioration of today, or powerless to do anything to stop
it. If this is so, then why trust or rely upon them?
And if we do not trust or rely upon educational experts, then why
should they run our lives? Now here you might say that I am
exaggerating the role of educational experts -- after all, their job
is merely to figure out how to teach things to people in better ways,
not to run folk's lives. But much more is taking place, and by
involvement with the content of what is taught, by setting standards
and evaluating other people's efforts, "experts" do indeed run
people's lives, and exaggerate their own roles to the point of
inevitable incompetence!
By subtle, indirect, economic and social means you and other
educational experts wield tremendous power over all of us. I call for
a boycott of educational experts who are irresponsible in the way they
use the responsibility entrusted to them by society.
Social responsibility goes hand in hand with doing business.
Companies and individuals can -- and often do -- many things which
make money, and are not, strictly speaking, immoral, and certainly not
illegal, but which are simply "not right."
We all know it is not right to limit the rights and freedoms of
homeschoolers, whether it is done overtly or covertly, knowingly or
unknowingly. If you evaluate a family's children or child, and you
can see that overall progress has been made in the educational
program, then you are morally bound to state in your evaluation that
the requirements for homeschooling has been met. If you do anything
else -- refuse to do the evaluation , for example, no matter what your
reason, then you have taken away that family's rights, and you deserve
to "lose your license," just as an auto mechanic would lose his
license if he refused to give the sticker to a car that passed the
minimum standards for state inspection. I don't want evaluators to be
licensed, but I want them and you to behave, and a consumer boycott is
the only way to enforce proper behavior in this case.
I am sure you understand where I am coming from. Assure me that you
will properly evaluate those who meet the minimum requirements, and
you needn't worry about your business being interfered with by me. In
the various speeches you make about the "role of the evaluator," tell
folks about the social responsibility to protect people's rights under
the law, instead of playing up your imagined responsibility to
convince legislators that we are "homeschooling for excellence." Stop
pretending to be a statewide organization, and admit that you are a
business both to the public and to state government officials. Do
these things -- "clean up you act" -- and you will not be annoyed by
nasty articles calling for boycotts of your business, although the
many others I addressed in my article may still have to deal with my
big mouth.
But as long as you try to manipulate our fellow homeschoolers, as long
as you profit by selling services that people do not really need, as
long as you pass off your profit-making business as a statewide
organization, and as long as you pretend to represent homeschoolers'
interests to legislators and state officials without any mandate to do
so, I will not shut up about it. After all these years, with all the
wonderful work and research the two of you have done, you could be
playing such a beautiful role in changing the way education is
conducted in this country, and instead you are earning a living by
importing the standard of public schools into people's living rooms,
and playing the role of "ghetto police" by trying to keep the other
homeschoolers in line for the state government. How sad!
Nobody's perfect, least of all me, and all is forgiven if only you
will change your attitude. You do not realize the tremendous effect
you have upon the homeschoolers of this state. People all over hang
upon your every word and look to the two of you as the supreme gurus
of homeschooling. As such, you must not be allowed to misbehave in
this fashion. Where are truth and goodness in this sad, sad tale of
compromises, day to day profits, and the scramble for personal
importance?
Sincerely, Ron Baseman, RD 3, Box 256B, Tarentum, PA 15084
====================================================================
From rytis@telerama.lm.com Wed Feb 9 06:16:52 1994
From: Rytis Balciunas
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
To: Doris Hohensee
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
If you would be so kind as to e-mail me your references and Richman's
"letter/responses" - the signal to noise ratio on home-ed-politics is too
low for my tastes, and my disk space is limited for the volume of stuff
coming from that list.
You also indicated that home-ed mailer is not for politics. What do you
expect when you make such an inflammatory statement as your original post!
May seem innocuous enough to you, but it sure struck a raw nerve in
others... You are absolutely right that politics belong in another
discussion.
Regards..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rytis T. Balciunas (rytis@telerama.lm.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@Mainstream.com Wed Feb 9 13:39:26 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Re: Home Education Magazine letters
I'm beginning to see what's going on here. It's simply a matter of opinions.
Well, for what it's worth, my opinion is that PA's home schooling laws are NOT
burdensome. Yes, they require more of me that I would choose to do, and I
don't like the government intrusion, but "burdensome?" Hardly!
If I had MY way, I wouldn't be answerable to the government for ANYTHING!
No Homeschooling affidavit, not income tax returns (what's withheld is quite
enough), etc. But in our society, THIS IS NOT AN OPTION. We as citizens must
be vigilent to protect our rights, but we're not always going to be able to
push government intrusion back as far as we'd like.
So, the PA homeschooling law (like ANY OTHER in the country) is a compromise.
We pushed the legislature as far as we believed we could, and went
head-to-head against some of the best-organized lobbies in Harrisburg,
and came out with a law that substantially IMPROVED the homeschooling climate
in PA. We knew at the time that is was not perfect, and there were some
points we were sorry to lose, but it was better than the status quo by a LONG
shot.
Also, we were under a time constraint. A Federal judge had striken PA's
compulsory attendance law because is was "unconstitutionally vague" concerning
homeschooling. The legislature HAD to pass a homeschooling law before the end
of 1988 no matter what. We were simply trying to make it as good as possible.
So, what now?
1. Let's be thankful that the pre-1989 problems are behind us.
(And they were SUBSTANTIAL!)
2. Let's admit that PA's law is superior to some and inferior to others.
3. Let's be vigilant against other laws that will erode our rights
(like lowering the mandatory attendance age, or Outcomes-Based
Education, or the children's rights treaty, or ...)
4. Let's be CAREFUL about re-opening discussions on the law.
The powerful lobbies I mentioned (School Superintendants, PTA's,
two teacher's unions, and others) were quite frankly taken by surprise
when we showed up as a strong voice at the bargaining table, and
when thousands of homeschoolers from all over the state were barraging
their representatives in favor of our proposals.
There is concern among a number of us that if we re-open these
discussions too soon, they will attack with power that we could have
trouble countering. Yes, this is speculation, but the possibility
exists that we could end up with a WORSE law, rather than a better
one, so caution is always in order.
Also, we are no longer a united front. Before 1989, the homeschooling
families spoke very loudly, and with substantially one voice because
conditions here were so attrocious. There was strong cooperation
among folks of widely varrying beliefs and philosophies because we
were all feeling a similar pain. (These folks who so loudly complain
were in Harrisburg lobbying with the rest of us!)
IMMEDIATELY AFTER the signing ceremony, we held a meeting to determine
what this unified group would do now. For the first time, the meeting
collapsed into bickering and turf-building. Our unifying cause was
gone, so we could no longer agree. We've never met as a single group
again. It's kind of sad, but really, it's to be expected.
So, given our lack of unity, and the wounded animal syndrom that our
foes are likely to display, I would fear re-opening discussions right
now.
As far as there being two or three laws in PA; NO.
1. The private school provisions have NEVER been used successfully by ANY
homeschoolers in PA. The way they are worded, no judge has ever allowed
a homeschooler in PA to call themselves a private school.
2. Private tutoring IS an option for a VERY FEW (those who the state has
certified), but it is under the auspicise of the local school district.
Yes, there are no state statutes about tutoring, but pre-1989 experience
shows that local school districts can AND DO come up with some really
off-the-wall requirements. As a result, the MANY homeschooling parents
who hold teaching certificates choose to work under the homeschooling law,
rather than under the private tutoring provisions.
3. That leaves the homeschooling law as the only viable alternative; flawed
as it is.
Finally, the accusations about the Richman's:
Yes, they are a part of the educational establishment. That is part of the
reason why they were able to sit a the bargaining table and be heard! Without
them, we would have been at the mercy of the group of educrats who were out to
quash homeschooling.
Did the fact that they are part of the educational establishment cloud their
thinking? Possibly. But given their record in homeschooling their own
children, it is clear that their motives were right.
Are they out to become the homeschooling educrats? I think not. They share
the concerns about re-opening discussions abotu the PA laws that I cited
above, and believe that by policing our own ranks, we can avoid being policed
by the state. And they don't call themselves the judge and jury. They
believe that all evaluators have this responsibility. You are free to
disagree with their fears or their methods, but their motives are to protect
what we've got.
Do you have to pay the Richman's for a Highschool diploma? Sort of. They
were concerned about giving up diplomsa, because that left homeschoolers with
no option other than GED's. (In taking the GED, you are certifying that you
dropped out of school!) He developed his own graduation requirements and
submitted them to the PS Dept of Education. They accepted them, and agreed to
recognize the PA Homeshcooler's diploma in the same way that an private school
diploma is recognized. To meet the requirements, Richman's must evaluate and
keep records about your homeschooling in grades 9-12, so yes, there is a cost.
BUT, the PA Dept of Education remains open to any other organization doing the
same thing! If you feel that Richman's requirements are out of line, then you
can become a diploma-issuing organization too. And hopefully you can convince
those in Harrisburg that they can trust you, too!
Sorry I went on for so long, but I hate it when differences of opinion become
personal attacks against folks who's motives are pure, and who's actions have
had some great benefit. Those who don't like the Richman's don't have to have
anything to do with them. But it is CLEAR that we (in PA) are in MUCH better
shape today than before they became active!
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From evola@simon.wustl.edu Wed Feb 9 13:40:56 1994
From: evola@simon.wustl.edu (Tom_Evola_the_homeschooling_Dad)
To: "doris@Mainstream.com"@WUGATE.wustl.edu
Subject: Re: Penn. Home Ed.
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
doris,
thanks a bunch.
sounds to me like ONE of the problems with the Richman's story is their
business's name....it makes it sound like it IS a non-profit support group.
like we have here in Missouri.....a group called Families for Home Education...
and it is known and clear that they are a group with a board, etc. and a
mission. (not everyone agrees with what they're doing though)
i guess Richman has some ideas that could raise controversy. that is life
i guess. but it does rub me the wrong way too, after reading the various
articles/letters, that people were feeling the Richman's to be a SUPPORT GROUP
or RESOURCE.
i'll have to re-read the stuff after printing it out.
i appreciate the info very much though.
i think it would be wise/fair for you to simply post to the group (not the
whole articles) the dates of the Home Ed Mag. publications that you sent me
and what sections to read, etc.
the evidence for your own "opinions" IS there; some would want to check it out
i guess; sound reasonable; and could "clear your name"!!!!
thanks :-)
tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Wed Feb 9 18:05:36 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: PA law & differences of opinion
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
To Whom it May Concern,
Whats wrong with free enterprise? I thought that home based businesses
were supposed to be the best of both worlds? Aren't there a lot of
Homeschoolers who sell to other Homeschoolers? Is that exploitation? If it
is then aren't people like Mary Pride, Dr. Moore, Ruth Beechick, Cathy Duffy,
Greg Harris, Dan & Deb Deffinbaugh(The Timberdoodle) and Growing Without
Schooling exploiting us? Several of these people are considered "experts" on
Homeschooling and have testified before state reps and judges. Thier opinions
have influenced state lawmakers and other Homeschoolers. Are they then wrong
to write books, publish magazines, and write curriculum to sell to us? Get
Real!
Richmans are accused of being into Homeschooling for the money and yet
the letters purporting to support that statement are from a woman who also has
a business SELLING to Homeschoolers in PA. I would question her motives, and
the motives of the individual who is publicly "slamming" the Richmans.
Diana Baseman was the originator and editor of "Pennsylvania Home
Education News". There is a CHARGE for a subscription.
Ms. Baseman does evaluations as was stated in a previous post and SHE
CHARGES FOR THE SERVICE!
Ms. Baseman has also written a book on how to comply with the PA law. There
is a CHARGE for the book (it's not given free!) It costs about $14 more or less. Richman's booklet costs $4.00.
As I posted before, I have been homeschooling in PA for 8 years. Both
before the law and under it. I have never found it to be burdensome or
intrusive. In fact, I've found it to be rather a challenge to creatively meet
the requirements set forth. It's all in your point of view. I have read the
law, rewritten it in my own words (to better understand it), contacted people
at the PA Dept of Ed. to confirm my interpretation, met school officials
head-on about thier (wrong) interpretations, been involved in a lawsuit
against the Pittsburgh City Schools when they tried to ignore the new law (I
was told by the Dept of Ed. that Pittsburgh City Schools considered themselves
to be above any law.)and recieved that "Letter of Transfer" without any
problems. The law states that the "Letter" is to be given to the supervisor
of the home ed. program (Thats you and me!) and we are to file it with the new
school district! (One could easily disappear!).
I also find it interesting that Richmans are being accused of wrongly
interpreting the law since, as was stated, they helped write it! I have no
problems with their view of it as it coincides with my own understanding and
that of the Dept. of Ed.(of course, it probably depends to whom you talk to in
the Dept).
I do find all this "slamming" to be rather nasty. I had hoped
Homeschoolers were above petty rivalries, but I guess we all are part of
"fallen man" and therefore prone to practice gossip and backstabbing in the
name of being right. (:<)
Laurie
Pittsburgh, PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Wed Feb 9 20:06:14 1994
From: rumpelst@aol.com
Subject: Re: #2(2) Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Who are these Richmans? Are they homeschoolers themselves? How did they get
involved with homeschooling at their level of involvement?
I pity the poor homeschoolers of Pennsylvania!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 04:27:37 1994
From: stephenbuf@aol.com
Subject: Thank you for PA info
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
Thank you so much for your excellent explaination of the situation
is PA.
Those of us who live in different states need that kind of background
information to understand the issues and make an evaluation.
Living in Oklahoma, we do not face the issues many of the rest of
the country faces as our state Constitutions recognizes alternative
forms of educations. To date we have no requirements of
notifications, record keeping, standized testing, etc. Count our
requirements: ZERO.
Stephen Buford
stephenbuf@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 13:24:00 1994
From: rumpelst@aol.com
Subject: Re: PA law & differences of opinion
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>As I posted before, I have been homeschooling in PA for 8 years. Both
before the law and under it. I have never found it to be burdensome or
intrusive. In fact, I've found it to be rather a challenge to creatively
meet
the requirements set forth.<
Perhaps some homeschooling parents in PA might think homeschooling in and of
itself presents challenge enough without further "help" from the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 15:14:49 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994
From: rumpelst@aol.com
> Who are these Richmans? Are they homeschoolers themselves? How did
> they get involved with homeschooling at their level of involvement?
>
> I pity the poor homeschoolers of Pennsylvania!
Howard Richman was a public school teacher who was on sabbaticle at
the time of the 1988 legislative effort. (Their state is so large
that getting to the state capital was a major factor in whether or not
you had the opportunity to participate.) He also was a homeschooler.
Apparently he has quit his job in the public school to "evaluate"
homeschoolers full-time for a living.
Diana Baseman is a veteran homeschooler. She is about as outspoken
and "well-loved" by her opposition as I am with mine.
**Note: indicates that the writer is "grinning," ie, it indicates a
sarcastic remark.
Alan and Laurie Koch were homeschooling for a whole month before Alan
was asked to attend the legislative process whereby homeschoolers
rights were compromised, particularly at the end. Apparently Ron
Baseman and others like him, having too much experience or something,
were discouraged from attending. (In NH this weeding out process also
occurred. There were a number of sub-committee hearings of which only
the "correct" players were informed, others discouraged. It's not
that you weren't invited, but you were deliberately not informed.)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994
From: Alan Koch
> So, the PA homeschooling law (like ANY OTHER in the country) is a
> compromise. We pushed the legislature as far as we believed we could,
> and went head-to-head against some of the best-organized lobbies in
> Harrisburg, and came out with a law that substantially IMPROVED the
> homeschooling climate in PA. We knew at the time that is was not
> perfect, and there were some points we were sorry to lose, but it was
> better than the status quo by a LONG shot.
> Also, we were under a time constraint. A Federal judge had striken
> PA's compulsory attendance law because is was "unconstitutionally
> vague" concerning homeschooling. The legislature HAD to pass a
> homeschooling law before the end of 1988 no matter what. We were
> simply trying to make it as good as possible.
Since Alan had little experience (only one month) with the old law,
he's in no position to judge it. Like NH, Penn. law went from local
to state control. Only a minority of families had any trouble at the
local level. About 50 of the 501 school districts were experiencing
difficulties. There was no due process proceeding to resolve these
disputes prior to court, yet only 11 of these went to court. I
believe 10 of them were part of the class action suit that resulted in
citing the "private tutoring" law as vague. Hardly justification for
changing everything.
So, the court indicated the law was vague. Clarify a few things,
perhaps. Add a due process proceeding to prevent court action. But
mandating: teacher qualifications (GED or HS diploma), educational
objectives, contemporaneous log, testing requirements (grades 3, 5 and
8), notarized affidavits with criminal checks, medical and dental
records, annual evaluations and a portfolio can hardly be called an
"improvement."
Isn't the new law, with it's "sustained progress," "reasonable belief"
and "appropriate education," equally vague and ambiguous? Are public
and private schools in Pennsylvania open to such scrutiny? Do they
measure up to such stringent requirements? Isn't this
"discriminatory" action to impose such requirements only upon home
educators?
By signing the affidavit to a specified performance, home educators
exchange their right to self-determination for the privilege to be
regulated by the State. Once you sign that document, you are under
the jurisdiction of the State and you can be forced to comply. It's
an issue of jurisdiction. If you grant it, you can count on the State
to regulate and enforce it. You must then rely upon the "benevolence
of the State."
The parallels to New Hampshire are striking. Our law was patterned
after Penn. We had problems in less than 2% of the local school
districts. We also had an instrumental public school teacher involved
in the legislative process. He still works for the public school but
he now evaluates homeschoolers for a living. He and his wife have
never homeschooled. She organized a state-wide organization for the
purpose of the legislative effort. But, heavens, that organization is
not a *political* organization. He was appointed by the commissioner
of education to an advisory board for homeschoolers, even though they
have never homeschooled. It is always important to place the right
people in the right spot to effect "optimal" results. I could go on,
but I'll spare you the comparisons.
> 1. Let's be thankful that the pre-1989 problems are behind us.
>(And they were SUBSTANTIAL!)
A minority were having problems before, now the situation is worse for
everyone.
> 2. Let's admit that PA's law is superior to some and inferior to others.
This says nothing.
> 3. Let's be vigilant against other laws that will erode our rights
> (like lowering the mandatory attendance age, or Outcomes-Based
> Education, or the children's rights treaty, or ...)
This is safe. It's in the future and doesn't impact the wonderful "law."
> 4. Let's be CAREFUL about re-opening discussions on the law.
> The powerful lobbies I mentioned (School Superintendents, PTA's,
> two teacher's unions, and others) were quite frankly taken by surprise
> when we showed up as a strong voice at the bargaining table, and
> when thousands of homeschoolers from all over the state were barraging
> their representatives in favor of our proposals.
> There is concern among a number of us that if we re-open these
> discussions too soon, they will attack with power that we could have
> trouble countering. Yes, this is speculation, but the possibility
> exists that we could end up with a WORSE law, rather than a better
> one, so caution is always in order.
> Also, we are no longer a united front. Before 1989, the homeschooling
> families spoke very loudly, and with substantially one voice because
> conditions here were so atrocious. There was strong cooperation
> among folks of widely varying beliefs and philosophies because we
> were all feeling a similar pain. (These folks who so loudly complain
> were in Harrisburg lobbying with the rest of us!)
> IMMEDIATELY AFTER the signing ceremony, we held a meeting to determine
> what this unified group would do now. For the first time, the meeting
> collapsed into bickering and turf-building. Our unifying cause was
> gone, so we could no longer agree. We've never met as a single group
> again. It's kind of sad, but really, it's to be expected.
The common enemy (the State), unifying threat (outlawing home
education) and urgency (it's always a panic) is gone. Now the
proponents must rationalize how the law is the "best we could get"
and "never risk the status quo" again.
> As far as there being two or three laws in PA; NO.
> 1. The private school provisions have NEVER been used successfully by ANY
> homeschoolers in PA. The way they are worded, no judge has ever allowed
> a homeschooler in PA to call themselves a private school.
This is incorrect. Prior to 1988 some parents did homeschool as
private schools.
> 2. Private tutoring IS an option for a VERY FEW (those who the state has
> certified), but it is under the auspices of the local school district.
This is incorrect. Prior to 1988 _all_ families complied under this
provision of the law. There were no specified qualifications for the
tutors. Some districts wanted certification, some did not. It was
vague and interpreted by the local school districts.
Many families still use the tutoring law to opt out of the home
education law. Since 1988, a Pennsylvania teaching certification is
required. One mother took a correspondence course from Vermont to get
her teaching certification. She was allowed to use her homeschooling
as her practical experience for certification. Apparently
Pennsylvania recognized this for her certification. There is no
uniformity on the local interpretation or regulation of this provision
however. One must be prepared to negotiate the requirements with the
district.
> Yes, there are no state statutes about tutoring, but pre-1989 experience
> shows that local school districts can AND DO come up with some really
> off-the-wall requirements. As a result, the MANY homeschooling parents
> who hold teaching certificates choose to work under the homeschooling law,
> rather than under the private tutoring provisions.
> 3. That leaves the homeschooling law as the only viable alternative; flawed
> as it is.
Correct. It is quite flawed. When do you propose to do something about it?
> Finally, the accusations about the Richman's:
> Yes, they are a part of the educational establishment. That is part
> of the reason why they were able to sit a the bargaining table and be
> heard! Without them, we would have been at the mercy of the group of
> educrats who were out to quash homeschooling.
I heard _that_ before, right here in NH. A professional educator being
better suited to sit down and barter and defend our rights. Wrong.
> Are they out to become the homeschooling educrats? I think not. They
> share the concerns about re-opening discussions about the PA laws that
> I cited above, and believe that by policing our own ranks, we can
> avoid being policed by the state. And they don't call themselves the
> judge and jury. They believe that all evaluators have this
> responsibility. You are free to disagree with their fears or their
> methods, but their motives are to protect what we've got.
"Policing our own ranks": reminds me of the Judenrat. It appears to
include suppressing dissent. The Richman's evaluate home educators
more stringently than even some local school districts. There have
been parents who "fail" the Richmans' evaluations and "pass" by the
local district standards.
In 1989 evaluators were advised at a Richman training session to
"minimize" their risk by "screening" families prior to evaluation.
Evaluators were advised not to accept "high risk" families due to the
time involved, the risk of a due process hearing, and the need to
maintain professional status in the eyes of superintendents.
What are some of the indicators of high risk or "difficult"
evaluations? The examples presented were based upon the following:
unconventional appearance of a teenage student; a single mother cannot
really be educating; family lives in a "tough" school district; child
completed all work for grade level but did poorly on standardized test
containing material she had never studied; child behind in reading for
grade level; child's samples of work showed progress, but he had low
test scores; and education objectives written in incomplete sentences.
The law, Act 169, defines "appropriate education" as " program
consisting of instruction in the required subjects for the time
required in this act and in which the student demonstrates sustained
progress in the overall program." None of the "difficult" evaluations
indicate any problem with the law's criteria.
> Do you have to pay the Richman's for a Highschool diploma? Sort of.
> They were concerned about giving up diplomas, because that left
> homeschoolers with no option other than GED's. (In taking the GED,
> you are certifying that you dropped out of school!) He developed his
> own graduation requirements and submitted them to the PS Dept of
> Education. They accepted them, and agreed to recognize the PA
> Homeshcooler's diploma in the same way that an private school diploma
> is recognized. To meet the requirements, Richman's must evaluate and
> keep records about your homeschooling in grades 9-12, so yes, there is
> a cost.
Now homeschoolers who don't have diplomas when going to college are
having difficulty. "Where is your diploma from PA Homeschoolers?" "I
don't have to have one," they reply. But colleges think that maybe
there is something "deficient" about such students. The Richmans
appear to be promoting an educational elitism to prove the merits of
home education.
> Sorry I went on for so long, but I hate it when differences of opinion
> become personal attacks against folks who's motives are pure, and
> who's actions have had some great benefit. Those who don't like the
> Richman's don't have to have anything to do with them. But it is
> CLEAR that we (in PA) are in MUCH better shape today than before they
> became active!
These folks have set themselves up as the State's new and demanding
overseers. I'm supposed to believe that their motives are "pure"?
Who cares what their motives are! Look at the results.
> ...what I'm arguing against is people who condemn the folks who
> negotiated the compromise because it isn't perfect.
> I fully believe and hope that we can do better at some point in the
> future. But for reasons I pointed out, we must be careful of how
> and when we pick that fight, because losing big-time is a possibility
!
The problem is that the negotiators don't necessarily value parent's
rights and thus see no problem with compromising them. It seems
obvious to me that a public school educator might have a conflict of
interest when negotiating private home educators' rights.
> Alan Koch:
> ...We as citizens must be vigilant to protect our rights, but we're not
> always going to be able to push government intrusion back as far as
> we'd like.
How must citizens exercise vigilance? By accepting and complying with a
bad law? When are you going to do something about it?
==== If not now, when? If not you, who? ====
Howard Richman urged home educators on Sept. 16, 1989 not to form
organizations for political action until there is "a legislative
crisis pressing enough to need action from all across the state."
"Political organizations tend to be fractitious," according to Mr.
Richman.
Note: My sources of information on the Pennsylvania situation are a
variety of newsletters, books, letters and a number of phone calls to
a variety of Pennsylvania home educators over the recent years.
Doris
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 14:31:07 1994
From: Dave_Stevenson
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> From: Doris Hohensee
Re: Doris Hohensee comments
Doris, are you from Pennsylvania or New Hampshire? I used to live
in Derry and Windham, New Hampshire and went to church in Salem, NH.
I appreciate the statements you make against state mandates and
arguments in favor of self-determination.
This affidavit to a specified performance, whereby one gives up
the right to self-determination and places oneself in the
jurisdiction of the state seems *potentially* very dangerous.
I would not like to be in the position of giving my word and
then having to go against my sworn statement when state
regulations violate my religious beliefs. I appreciate the
issue of jurisdiction as one fellow church member is challenging
the jurisdiction of the town to hold him, as a Sovereign Citizen,
to the zoning code.
What exactly goes into the affadavit?
The issue of "sustained progress" is an issue that I may face in
a different way in the state of New York. My second son is having
difficulty learning to read and is very slow. We are concerned
about how well he will do on the standardized testing. We are
considering withholding standardized testing scores from the
school district until we see how he does. In New York state,
a homeschooler may be put on probation if he performs under the
33rd percentile. Two years of poor grades may subject the home-
schooling to a review of some sort, I believe.
It is interesting to note that nationally about 10% of
children are in private schools and about 1% homeschool.
This means that at least 22% (33%-11%) of all public school
students perform under the 33rd percentile, and this *assumes*
that all private and home school students are below the 33rd
percentile, which we of course know is not true. How many
public school teachers face probation when their children
perform under the 33rd percentile?
In public schools, there is really quite little accountability
for teachers. Once tenured, lifetime employment is virtually
assured except for budget cuts or a teacher sexually abusing
a student.
Recent studies on literacy among Americans demonstrate conclusively
that public schools are not doing an adequate job, yet they
want to clamp down on homeschoolers. It shows the power of
political action committees among teachers unions. Any dolt
who says homeschoolers shouldn't be politically organized needs
their head examined.
> Howard Richman urged home educators on Sept. 16, 1989 not to form
> organizations for political action until there is "a legislative
> crisis pressing enough to need action from all across the state."
> "Political organizations tend to be fractitious," according to Mr.
> Richman.
> How must citizens exercise vigilance? By accepting and complying with a
> bad law? When are you going to do something about it?
Civil disobedience is always an option. Political education is a
slow process and changing laws, minds and hearts takes much time.
I think a sound strategy needs to be building from the local level
up. Nehemiah stationed the men in front of their own homes and their
own families. He gave them a sword and a trowel. This amounts to
confrontation coupled with service through building. Both approaches
may be required at different times.
Despite the fact that laws might not be ideal in your state, it
would appear that homeschooling is growing as a movement. I hear
it is growing at a 15-20% rate per year, meaning that the size
would double within five years. This translates to potentially
more political clout and a larger political faction to deal with.
Time may assist us to some degree.
I think it is necessary to develop a theology of resistance against
state tyranny and unwarranted intrusion in the sphere of family
government. Strategic thinkers will develop strategies that offer
the greatest amount of resistance for the lowest cost.
>From the short time I have been on the list, it sounds like you're
doing good things Doris. So keep up the work. People's thinking
does need to be challenged on these issues.
However, I still believe HSLDA serves by providing assistance
against the legal encroachments and I will continue to support
them as well. I am not sure that your criticisms of HSLDA mean
that we should withdraw from supporting them.
David Stevenson
Rochester, NY
stevenso@eng106.rochny.uspra.abb.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 15:02:33 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Doris Hohensee won't give up, will she?
Well, I think all of the opinions and interpretations have been put on the
table, so I'll let this subject drop -- with one last point:
Please notice that of the DOZEN people who have participated in this exchange,
only ONE (Ms.Hohensee) has anything substantially negative to say about the
Richmans and the PA law. In fact over half of those involved either
recommended the Richmans in the first place, or supported them strongly.
And that's how it goes. It doesn't matter how good a job folks do, there will
always be a few vocal malcontents who can make things sound miserable. So,
who to believe? I leave that as an exercise for the reader. I'l sure most of
you are intelligent enough to draw your own conclusions by now!
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
P.S. Oh, and by the way. Just to show you how reliable Ms. Hohensee's
"facts" are, she said, "Alan and Laurie Koch were homeschooling for a
whole month before Alan was asked to attend the legislative process..."
In fact, we began homeschooling in January 1987. I can't recall the date
of the meeting that she is referring to, but suffice it to say that at
that point, we had been homeschooling for over a year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 15:38:54 1994
From: srogers@mcc.com (Steve Rogers)
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> From: Alan Koch
>
> Doris Hohensee won't give up, will she?
No, you certainly get the prize for giving up. You quit first. Rah.
> Well, I think all of the opinions and interpretations have been put on the
> table, so I'll let this subject drop -- with one last point:
> Please notice that of the DOZEN people who have participated in this exchange,
> only ONE (Ms.Hohensee) has anything substantially negative to say about the
> Richmans and the PA law.
Oh, the minority must be wrong.
> In fact over half of those involved either
> recommended the Richmans in the first place, or supported them strongly.
Well, if its a clear majority, it *must* be right.
> And that's how it goes. It doesn't matter how good a job folks do, there
> will always be a few vocal malcontents who can make things sound miserable.
Yes, the minority are so annoying.
> So, who to believe? I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
> I'l sure most of
> you are intelligent enough to draw your own conclusions by now!
Oh yes, lets not forget to insult the disagreeing reader . . .
> suffice it to say that at that point, we had been
> homeschooling for over a year.
That doesn't really contradict her point that the *most* knowledgable
people in the state were avoided, now does it. It contradicts what she
said in a trivial way not related to the essence of the discussion.
I don't really care too much about this issue. However this posting is so
loaded with third-rate smoke-blowing that I find it offensive. If you
think Doris is wrong, I wish you would stick to the facts. In most
everything I think is right and important, people try to argue it down
by saying - you're the minority, you must be wrong. I am shocked that
a homeschooler would use this petty polemic technique on the home-ed list.
Steve R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 16:47:24 1994
From: Mike Dwyer
Subject: PA Discussion
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
There's an old saw about two things that you really don't want
to see made - sausages and legislation.
Bickering among homeschoolers is not a pretty sight, either, and
unfortunately it is not rare.
Thanks to Steve Rogers for putting the exchange in its proper (negative)
perspective. It might also be worth noting that the events being
discussed (in the exchange between Ms. Hohensee and Mr. Koch) took
place in 1988! That's over 5 years ago, folks.
Nevertheless, there are some substantive issues here that need to be
discussed, preferably without the polemics that Mr. Rogers noted. (Of
course Mr. Koch is apparently an academic, where polemics is a way of
life - however disgusting to the rest of us. I've never found it
conducive to reasoned or persuasive discussion, or to building caring
relationships. One does encounter it in the legislative process, however.)
As one who was significantly involved in getting the Colorado HS law passed
in 1986-87, the various arguments sound strikingly familiar. I can almost
place local names on the personalities in this PA/NH discussion.
There is a broad spectrum of opinion about legal issues among homeschoolers,
and the farther apart we are on the spectrum, the more incompatible our
strategy. Some of us are itching for a fight ("a theology of resistance
against state tyranny"), seemingly for the sake of the fight itself.
Others would like most of all to not have to have anything to do with
legal issues. (Fill out the form and not worry about the implications.)
But we are in a battle, a serious battle, for our families, for our faith,
and for our freedom. The forces arrayed against us are powerful and have
been on the ascendancy for several decades. Much ground has been given up,
so don't expect it to be taken back all at once.
On the other hand, for those of us who name the name of Christ, we also
need to remember that the struggle is not ultimately against the powers
of flesh and blood, and that our weapons are not the weapons of the
world. When we rely on human methods we have already lost. Christianity
did not conquer the Roman Empire by assaulting its power centers but by
the submissiveness of Jesus Christ.
There is a time for political (i.e., legislative) action, but it is a
time-consuming, draining process. The important thing is for us to build
up the next generation. An intense struggle to pass a new law that goes
against the prevailing philosophy of the legislature could detract from
that effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Thu Feb 10 22:11:45 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
From: Dave_Stevenson
> What exactly goes into the affidavit?
Parents must submit to their school superintendent of residence a
notarized affidavit prior to the commencement of the home education
program and annually thereafter on August 1. It must include the
following:
a. "Name of the supervisor of the home education program who shall be
responsible for the provision of instruction." The supervisor is
responsible for providing instruction but does not necessarily have to
do the teaching.
b. "Name and age of each child who shall participate in the home
education program."
c. "Address and telephone number of the home education site."
d. "That such subjects as required by law are offered in the English
Language."
e. "Statement that the home education program will comply with the
provisions of this section and that the notarized affidavit shall be
satisfactory evidence thereof."
f. "Certification that no adults living in the home have been
convicted of a felony in the past five years."
g. "An outline of proposed education objectives by subject area."
h. "Evidence that the child has been immunized in accordance with the
provisions of section 1303 (A) or a medical, religious, or ethical
exemption."
i. "Evidence that the child has received health and medical services
required for students of the child's age or grade level" or an
exemption.
> In New York state, a homeschooler may be put on probation if he
> performs under the 33rd percentile. Two years of poor grades may
> subject the home-schooling to a review of some sort, I believe.
In my state of NH, the child needs to score above the 40th percentile,
or probation. If not improved in a year's time, termination.
> How many public school teachers face probation when their children
> perform under the 33rd percentile?
None, of course.
> Any dolt who says homeschoolers shouldn't be politically organized
> needs their head examined.
It's because they are satisfied with the status quo.
> ...it would appear that homeschooling is growing as a movement. I hear
> it is growing at a 15-20% rate per year, meaning that the size would
> double within five years. This translates to potentially more
> political clout and a larger political faction to deal with.
In NH there are about 2,000 home educators (plus those underground)
and about 16,000 private school children. This is a 1 to 8 ratio.
Private schools are closing while home education is growing.
> However, I still believe HSLDA serves by providing assistance against
> the legal encroachments and I will continue to support them as well. I
> am not sure that your criticisms of HSLDA mean that we should withdraw
> from supporting them.
I am not opposed to HSLDA helping families that seek legal assistance.
I am opposed to HSLDA interfering into State politics to the detriment
of the local organizations and groups. I am opposed to HSLDA
compromising away parents' rights in State legislatures.
Doris
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Fri Feb 11 09:18:56 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
I'm sorry. You were right; the tone of my last message was caustic and
uncalled-for. I do not regret what I said, only how I said it. I ask all who
read that message to forgive my error, including Ms. Hohensee.
Thank you, Steve, for your comments. But there is one thing you said to which
I must respond. You castigated me for inferring that the minority must be
wrong. I would be the LAST person to say that, as I am in the minority in
virtually every firmly-held belief I have!
What I was pointing out was that Ms. Hohensee is a minority of ONE. There's
no way of knowing how many PA homeschooling families read this list; but to
date, not one of them has agreed with her, and many have disagreed. That was
my point.
NOW, hopefully I can be done with this discussion!
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Fri Feb 11 09:20:44 1994
From: "Randall Shaw"
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
I've been a lurker on the home schooling list for a while and
(generally) enjoy the personal stories/commentaries on home schooling.
The political discussions are both interesting and horrifying as they
describe the accelerating loss of our liberty. But Alan is *too
much*.
Alan writes:
> Please notice that of the DOZEN people who have participated in this
> exchange, only ONE (Ms.Hohensee) has anything substantially negative
> to say about the Richmans and the PA law. In fact over half of those
> involved either recommended the Richmans in the first place, or
> supported them strongly.
I find Alan's "response" mean-spirited, shallow and utterly unconvincing.
Alan hasn't considered that there may be DOZENS of people on the
list--like me--who haven't jumped into the debate because Doris has
spoken so eloquently and persuasively that we don't feel we have
anything to add. Trying to draw a conclusion based on "headcount"
instead of the substance of the arguments is exactly the kind of
muddled thinking that is all too prevalent in our society.
I, for one, have consistently found Doris' postings to be intelligent,
passionate and reasonable.
It's fortunate that we have someone as dedicated and persistent as Doris to
carry on the struggle for home schooling.
Doris, please keep it up!!
Randall Shaw
rjshaw.us.oracle.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Fri Feb 11 13:34:22 1994
From: Brian.J.Kennedy@um.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Okay everyone let's not start a FLAME WAR. We all need to be very
careful about our remarks and how they might be interpreted out here
in cyberspace. Politeness and consideration works well in any
environment. But consider: we hardly know each other. We do have
much to share, I don't like my E-mail cluttered with a bunch of NOISE.
Please no Flame wars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Fri Feb 11 13:36:42 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: PA Affidavit
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
For those who asked, below is a copy of the affidavit that we
submitted this year.
As far as the attachments go,
1. Objecttives: That is included in this message. VERY GENERAL, as you can
see, but this is more than some families file.
2. Parent's educational level, and
3. Health records: We simply noted what we had sent in the first year we
were in this district and left it at that.
4. Special Ed: Our son is not Special Ed, so this does not apply.
Since this affidavit quotes the PA statute which acknowledges parental rights,
I could HARDLY call this signing away our rights! And really, I have no
problem with supplying this information to the school district.
As I said before, I'd rather not have to, but I don't think this is a burden!
Alan S. Koch
Pittsburgh, PA
==============================================================================
Affidavit of the Supervisor of a Home Education Program
The compulsory education section of the Pennsylvania school code states:
It is the policy of the Commonwealth to preserve the primary
right of the parent or parents , or person or persons in loco
parentis to a child, to choose the education and training for
such child.
Date: August 1, 1993
School District of Residence: Highlands School District
I attest that I am a parent or guardian or other person having legal custody
of the child or children listed below, that I am responsible for the provision
of instruction in his/her/their home education program in which the following
courses are offered in the English language for a minimum of one hundred
eighty (180) days of instruction or a minimum of nine hundred (900) hours of
instruction at the elementary school level or nine hundred ninety (990) hours
of instruction at the secondary school level, and that the home education
program is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of the Public School
Code:
At the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL the following courses shall be taken: English,
to include spelling, reading, and writing; arithmetic; science; geography;
history of the United States and Pennsylvania; civics; safety education,
including regular and continuous instruction in the dangers and prevention of
fires; health and physiology; physical education; music; and art.
At the SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL the following courses shall be taken: English,
to include language, literature, speech and composition; science; geography;
social studies, to include civics, world history, history of the United States
and Pennsylvania; mathematics, to include general mathematics, algebra, and
geometry; art; music; physical education; health; and safety education,
including regular and continuous instruction in the dangers and prevention of
fires. Other courses may be included at the discretion of the supervisor.
I also certify that I have a high school diploma or its equivalent and that
all adults living in the home and persons having legal custody of a child or
children in the home education program have not been convicted, within five
years immediately preceding the date of the affidavit, of the criminal
offenses enumerated in subsection (E) of section 111 of the school code.
These offenses relate to criminal homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping,
unlawful restraint, rape, statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, concealing a death of a
child born out of wedlock, endangering welfare of children, dealing in infant
children, corruption of minors, and sexual abuse of children. They also
include felony offenses relating to prostitution and related offenses, and
felony offenses relating to obscene and other sexual materials.
Attached is:
1. An outline of proposed educational objectives by subject area.
2. Evidence that each child has received the health and medical services
required for students of the child's age or grade level or has a religious
exemption from those health and medical services in accordance with the
provisions of Article XIV of the school code. (Evidence that each child has
been immunized or has a religious or medical exemption from immunizations in
accordance with the provisions of section 1303(A) of the school code was
provided with my affidavit of August 1, 1989.)
3. Evidence of supervisor's graduation from High School or College or
attainment of a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) was provided with my
affidavit of August 1, 1989.
4. If a child in the home education program has been identified pursuant
to the provisions of the education of the handicapped act as needing special
education services, excluding those students identified as gifted or talented,
then also attached is written notification of approval from a
Pennsylvania-certified special education teacher, or a licensed clinical
psychologist, or a certified school psychologist that this program addresses
the specific needs of the student.
Name of Supervisor of Home Education Program: Laurie D. Koch
Address of Home Education Program Site: -----(censored)------
City: ---(censored)--- State: Pennsylvania Zip: 15065 County: Allegheny
Phone Number of Home Education Program Site: ----(censored)---
Name and age of Each Child who shall Participate in the Program:
Andrew A. Koch -- Age thirteen.
Signature of Supervisor of
Home Education Program:
NOTARIZATION: File with Superintendent, School District of Residence, prior
to the commencement of the Home Education Program, and annually thereafter on
August 1st.
==============================================================================
Goals and Objectives -- Andrew A. Koch, 1993/94
Biblical Studies, World History, U.S. & PA History:
We will be continueing our studies of Ancient civilizations of the Old
Testament with secular histories of the same peoples. We will be using such
resources as the Carnegie Museum, the library, Sketches From Church History
and Into the Unknown, The Story of Exploration published by The National
Geographic Society. We will also be placing church history in context of the
history of the world and of the United States including Pennsylvania. Since
so much of history was motivated by religion, it is only appropriate to
consider history in light of its religious significance. Our goal for Andrew
is to have him realize the cultural differences that make up our world and how
those differences affect us, enrich our own lives, and cause untold pain
because of misunderstandings going back to "Babel".
English:
Andrew will continue to learn how to compose and write stories with the aid of
such books as The Call of Stories by Robert Coles and Thinking On Paper by
V.A. Howard, Ph.D & J.H. Barton, M.A.. Andrew is also continuing his study of
the underlying structure and mechanics of the English Language through Alpha
Omega Lifepac Curriculum.
Spelling:
Spelling will be taught in the context of composition and logical application.
Reading:
Andrew loves to read. His taste in reading materials is still geared toward
Science Fiction, but he is developing a taste for biographies. This year we
hope to read "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin", "Thomas Jefferson, Man
on a Mountain" and several biographies of more contemporary
scientists/philosophers (Andrew's choice). Writing: Alpha Omega Lifepacs
provide for writing instruction. We will also be working with Andrew in
creative writing, and research writing as it applies to his science projects.
Mathematics:
Andrew will be working through Essential Algebra, this year. He will be
focusing on gaining a solid understanding of Algebra as he continues to polish
his computational skills, and prepares for higher math. We will also be using
Mathematics, A Human Endeavor for recreational Math reading. Science: Andrew
loves science and inventing. Andrew will continue his hands-on and
self-exploratory approach to the sciences.
Geography:
We will continue to explore geography through use of the globe, maps, other
references, news items, and the Bible. Our history studies will be
accompanied by studying the appropriate geographical areas of the world where
significant events occurred and are now occurring.
Civics:
We will continue to discuss current events and government with Andrew on a
regular basis using up-to-date materials, including the newspaper, historical
and news magazines. We will also be studying law as it applies to every-day
activities. Safety Education: We will provide regular and continuous
instruction in the dangers and prevention of fires. Andrew will also continue
learning about bicycle safety and water safety.
Health and Physiology:
We will expand upon Andrew's current level of understanding of heath and
hygiene, and help him to apply this knowledge. Andrew has been and will
continue studying the human reproductive systems and the changes that are
occurring in his own body as he matures. This study will be coordinated with
learning about Christian values as they apply to human relationships.
Physical Education:
Andrew will engage in a variety of physical and group activities, including
swimming lessons and Square Dancing with PA Homeschoolers.
Music:
Andrew will be exposed to performances of classical and other types of music.
He will be continuing Suzuki piano lessons with Mr. K. Trautman.
Art:
We are continuing our study of art history, what the greatest influences were,
how art is and was perceived by the general population and by the liberal
elite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Fri Feb 11 14:34:55 1994
From: Dave_Stevenson
Subject: Re: PA Discussion
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> From: Mike Dwyer
> Subject: PA Discussion
> Nevertheless, there are some substantive issues here that need to be
> discussed, preferably without the polemics that Mr. Rogers noted. (Of
> course Mr. Koch is apparently an academic, where polemics is a way of
> life - however disgusting to the rest of us. I've never found it
> conducive to reasoned or persuasive discussion, or to building caring
> relationships. One does encounter it in the legislative process, however.)
Perhaps you would wish to elaborate and say what the substantive issues
are that need to be discussed.
First, it seems that in most states there is considerable amount of
freedom granted to homeschoolers. More is always desirable. Administrative
and evaluation constraints may be construed as burdensome, and dissuade
some from homeschooling. Growth in the numbers homeschooling indicate there
is sufficient freedom and these burdens are not overwhelming.
I think the affadavits which commit a homeschooler to the jurisdiction of
the state to be an issue. Do these affadavits impact on the curriculum
taught in a home school? Currently, affadavits may have no impact, but they
may in the future. For instance, can AIDS/HIV curriculums be instituted for
the elementary grades over the objections of parents? I believe vigilance
is well called for and discussions about submission to the jurisdiction
of the state and when and where lines should be drawn should be discussed.
> There is a broad spectrum of opinion about legal issues among homeschoolers,
> and the farther apart we are on the spectrum, the more incompatible our
> strategy. Some of us are itching for a fight ("a theology of resistance
> against state tyranny"), seemingly for the sake of the fight itself.
> Others would like most of all to not have to have anything to do with
> legal issues. (Fill out the form and not worry about the implications.)
About the line: theology of resistance against state tyranny. I encourage you
to read John Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) An American Dream. It discusses
the theology of resistance that pervaded the American Revolution and the
revolt of the black regiment (clergy) which gave the theological impetus to
the American Revolution, among other things.
Resistance may be as simple as forming a political group opposing school
tax increases or getting elected to the school board, so that offensive
state regulations have difficulty filtering to the local level.
I appreciate the work that all those who have worked in getting homeschool
regulations passed which allows us at least the ability to operate largely
unhindered by government intrusion. The good work in these areas needs to
continue. However, the best defense is a good offense.
That is why I believe we need to broaden the scope to encompass an ultimate
objective of privatizing the public school system. The financial aspects of
education need to be considered as well as the administrative and educational
aspects. Many in our society are denied the education of their choosing
because of finances.
I think we should attempt to avoid becoming over compartmentalized in our
thinking. Consider the following:
More socialism -> more taxes -> less discretionary income ->
less educational choices
less in tithes to local church -> less in missions
Less socialism -> less taxes -> more discretionary income ->
more educational choices
more in tithes to local church -> more in missions
> There is a time for political (i.e., legislative) action, but it is a
> time-consuming, draining process. The important thing is for us to build
> up the next generation. An intense struggle to pass a new law that goes
> against the prevailing philosophy of the legislature could detract from
> that effort.
A very good point. I am constantly reminded that our families are our
first priority, and this constantly limits the amount of time I can
devote to political action.
David Stevenson
Rochester, NY
stevenso@eng106.rochny.uspra.abb.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From doris Fri Feb 11 16:18:57 1994
From: Doris Hohensee
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
To: Brian.J.Kennedy@um.cc.umich.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:41:52 EST
> From: Brian.J.Kennedy@um.cc.umich.edu
> To: home-ed@world.std.com
Brian:
I believe you posted to the wrong cyberspace. Try home-ed-politics.
> Okay everyone let's not start a FLAME WAR. We all need to be very
> careful about our remarks and how they might be interpreted out here
> in cyberspace.
I for one hope that my remarks are interpreted quite literally, thank
you.
> Politeness and consideration works well in any
> environment. But consider: we hardly know each other. We do have
> much to share, I don't like my E-mail cluttered with a bunch of NOISE.
> Please no Flame wars
This is how we get to "know each other" better. I do hope you enjoy
politics. There really hasn't been much flaming. It's politics as
usual. Thanks for expressing your concern.
Doris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Sat Feb 12 09:19:00 1994
From: megilll@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
One more note about the PA Law:
The compulsory school laws do not kick in until the child is 8. You need do
absolutely nothing until the 8th birthday.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sat Feb 12 13:01:41 1994
From: stephenbuf@aol.com
Subject: Doris vs. Paul
X-Mozilla-Status: 8000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Doris and Paul, I think it is obvious you do not see eye to eye on the
subject of HSLDA. Doris has several disagreements with them and has stated
her views quite eloquently, I might add. Paul is not in agreement with
Doris's assessment. I think it is plain to one and all that you, Doris, do
not appreciate efforts of HSLDA, while Paul does. Obviously, Doris and HSLDA
have different goals, or at least different and mutually exclusive ideas
about how to achieve those goals and/or what is best.
This discussion of your differences of opinion with HSLDA have now reached
the stage where you and Paul are beginning to repeat yourselves, offering
little new facts or insights that might sway those of us reading your posts,
and even worse quoting long sections of previous posts.
It is likely you two will never agree---
Paul writes:
Can you provide me with some names and exact quotes?
Doris replies:
I could name names, places and times. I could give you exact quotes too.
But you still would not be satisfied.
I know there are lurkers reading your posts--
Randall Shaw write:
..that there may be DOZENS of people on the list--like me--who haven't
jumped into the debate because Doris has spoken so eloquently and
persuasively that we don't feel we have anything to add...
I for one enjoy a lively debate, but tire of it when the same points are
continually repeated; I am NOT stupid, I KNOW what each of you believes, and
I have HEARD it all before from each of you.
My point is, it is time to offer some new arguments (NOT just the same ones
repackaged) or end the thread. Come on guys, give us a break (particularly
on our connect time charges).
Those of you on the list who disagree with me, drop me a flame :-). Those
who agree, I'll happily accept your kudos.
IMHO,
Stephen Buford
stephenbuf@aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following post interweaves my complaints wrt HSLDA, which
I haven't included to date.
___________________________________________________________________
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sat Feb 12 13:39:28 1994
From: think@netcom.com (think)
Subject: Re: Doris vs. Paul
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Stephen,
Did you see my last post to Doris? I said the debate was going nowhere
and that unless there was some new evidence to discuss (which she and
Karl won't bother with because we "would not be satisfied"), the last
word is hers.
So, I would love to send you kudos, friend, but I can't because of the
redundancy of your post.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-approval@world.std.com Sat Feb 12 16:11:57 1994
Subject: RE: Richmans, PA Home Schooling
From: Grace Sylvan
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Laurie writes:
> So, for what it's worth, here are some excerpts from Howard & Susan's book
> "The Three R's at Home". Oh, by the way, you have probably read some of
> Susan's stuff as she has been published in "Growing Without Schooling" on a
> pretty regular basis.
Thanks, I appreciated it!
Katherine is learning to read as per Howard's description. I've been
unsure when to call her reading 'reading' - sometimes she guesses,
sometimes she recognizes words, sometimes she forgets words she seemed
to be reading the day before. But if we sit down with an Easy Reader,
she probably reads at least half the words. Her understand of phonics
is increasing - she's very good with 'words that start with a letter'
games, and so on, which she often initiates during car rides.
Tigger (Grace Sylvan) Mom of Katherine Yelena, 8/8/89,
tigger@satyr.sylvan.com Corey 1/31/91; we loved him so,
Robin Gregory born 2/28/92
"It seems to me that our large goal is to find the ways to help our
children become humane and strong."
- Dr Haim Ginott quoted by Adele Faber & Elaine Mazlish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sat Feb 12 19:36:44 1994
From: "Brian G. Burgess"
Subject: Re: Doris vs. Paul
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
On Sat, 12 Feb 1994 stephenbuf@aol.com wrote:
> Doris and Paul, I think it is obvious you do not see eye to eye on the
> subject of HSLDA. Doris has several disagreements with them and has
> stated her views quite eloquently, I might add. Paul is not in
> agreement with Doris's assessment. I think it is plain to one and all
> that you, Doris, do not appreciate efforts of HSLDA, while Paul does.
> Obviously, Doris and HSLDA have different goals, or at least different
> and mutually exclusive ideas about how to achieve those goals and/or
> what is best.
> This discussion of your differences of opinion with HSLDA have now
> reached the stage where you and Paul are beginning to repeat
> yourselves, offering little new facts or insights that might sway
> those of us reading your posts, and even worse quoting long sections
> of previous posts.
> It is likely you two will never agree---
> Paul writes:
> Can you provide me with some names and exact quotes?
> Doris replies:
> I could name names, places and times. I could give you exact quotes too.
> But you still would not be satisfied.
I know there are lurkers reading your posts--
> Randall Shaw write:
> ..that there may be DOZENS of people on the list--like me--who haven't
> jumped into the debate because Doris has spoken so eloquently and
> persuasively that we don't feel we have anything to add...
> I for one enjoy a lively debate, but tire of it when the same points are
> continually repeated; I am NOT stupid, I KNOW what each of you believes,
> and I have HEARD it all before from each of you.
> My point is, it's time to offer some new arguments (NOT just the same ones
> repackaged) or end the thread. Come on guys, give us a break (particularly
> on our connect time charges).
>
>Those of you on the list who disagree with me, drop me a flame :-). Those
> who agree, I'll happily accept your kudos.
>
> IMHO,
> Stephen Buford
> stephenbuf@aol.com
>
I agreee, it is time to end this endless disgreement.
Brian Burgess
burgess@infi.net
_______________________________________________________________
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sun Feb 13 11:40:30 1994
From: tshar@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doris vs. Paul
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Thanks to you Paul!
-----------------------------------------------------------
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sun Feb 13 11:45:22 1994
From: tshar@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doris vs. Paul
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> Those who agree, I'll happily accept your kudos.
Thank you!
_____________________________________________________________
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sun Feb 13 11:47:07 1994
From: tshar@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
"I, for one, have consistently found Doris' postings to be intelligent,
passionate and reasonable.
It's fortunate that we have someone as dedicated and persistent as Doris to
carry on the struggle for home schooling."
I AGREE!
Sharon
_________________________________________________________________
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Sun Feb 13 14:05:23 1994
From: think@netcom.com (think)
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Home Schooling
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
tshar@aol.com wrote:
>
> I, for one, have consistently found Doris' postings to be intelligent,
> passionate and reasonable.
>
> It's fortunate that we have someone as dedicated and persistent as Doris to
> carry on the struggle for home schooling.
>
> I AGREE!
>
> Sharon
You know, the thing is, if the message were presented in a more positive
and constructive manner, I would agree, too.
I would strongly support Doris' proposed law. I respect and admire her
commitment to God's sovereignty.
The thing is, I don't think fellow homeschoolers and their supporters are
our enemies. I don't see how suggesting that we are pawns of Satan will
help matters. It seems to me that if we want to pass laws and make
changes, we need allies instead of enemies. We should stop scapegoating
one another and work out our differences in a civil, Biblical (for those
of us so inclined) manner.
As long as Doris or anyone else is doing that, I'm behind them. But, when
it becomes simply an exercise in demonizing a group or individual, I for
one am going to demand something more than hearsay and hurt feelings
before I buy it.
I just read that very interesting quote from the Richman's. (Thanks for
posting that.) I must say, these people hardly sound like the horrible
creatures one might have supposed from earlier descriptions.
That's what I'm talking about - the blatant, one-sided character
assasination in which some have engaged. I don't need that, and I have
to wonder why that's the type of battle tactics some of you applaud. I'm
sorry, but I find nothing "eloquent" about it. Place yourself in the
shoes of those suffering these slings and arrows, and see if you like it.
Paul
--
Public key available via finger
________________________________________________________________
From home-ed-politics@mainstream.com Mon Feb 14 12:16:44 1994
From: Alan Koch
Subject: MOREon the COMPULSORY SCHOOL LAW OF PA
X-Mozilla